Yes, the Deomcrats' greatest concern is that the presidential candidate selection process somehow gets snowballed, only to find at the end of the day that they are looking at a potential candidate who can't withstand Rethug smear tactics. What else is new, that's why the Superdelegates were created, isn't it?

It has for a long time been clear that the nomination is Obama's for the taking so long as he doesn't put on a helmet and grin in a tank. It has been equally clear that the Rethugs, aided by the media's "don't care whether it's true, only that somebody whispered it" reporting, have been searching for a potentially effective "helmet" to use against him. And, yes, it's equally true that in hewing to the Conventional Wisdom that they'll find one, Clinton has stayed in the game.

However, this game ends in the Democratic Nomination Process, the fact is that the Democratic Nominee is going to be running against John McCain, who is hopelessly Bush-ish on every meaningful issue and cannot possibly win in November UNLESS the Democrats somehow manage to completely knuckle under to swiftboat tactics that are sure to come.

At this juncture, Obama would be well advised to take exactly the high road suggested earlier, responding to "where's your flag pin"-type crap with "what kind of question is that and whose agenda are you pursuing in asking it, how's about we discuss something meaningful like the economy or Iraq?" And the rest of the Democratic side of the aisle backs this up. See whether, between now and the Convention, some traction can be obtained in defense of a rational, issues-based campaign.

If yes, the Superdelegates go with the popular vote. If no, the Superdelegates acknowledge that if this election is about Beltway issues, "comfort food" and nothing "scary and new", then they have to put Hillary up against McCain and the Machine or they're toast. Not toast because Obama isn't the better candidate, but toast because the Democratic Party can't figure out a way to get the American Media to take a presidential election seriously. Hillary's "devil you know" is a better bet than Obama's "devil you don't know" if the only thing that will matter is how deep the muck is going to be in the run-up to November.

That's the issue the Superdelegates were created to negotiate around if they had to. It's looking like they may have to.

"Who Needs Dana Perino When You Have the NYT's Michael Gordon"?

Kind of actually begs the question "who needs Dana Perino." Watching and reading the vapid-yet-arrogant countenance, alarmingly stupid "prepared opening explanations" she reads from her binder and the even-more-alarmingly (and uniformly) insipid utterances offered by this lowest common denominator in response to any questions from the floor, convincing nobody of anything except that she must have been recruited straight from late night MTV, it's hardly surprising that "journalists" may have given up on trying to actually locate a source worthy of quoting by name in support of an Administration line.

Another round of NYT pandering is, in fact, "newsworthy" and here's hoping GG's observations once again get picked up somewhere in the MSM in less than two weeks. But you have to have some sympathy for "professionals" like Gordon, right? After all, anything he has to say has just got to be presumed more intelligent and informed than whatever the current White House Press Secretary says, doesn't it?

McCain's speech was masterful as an exercise in "diversionary patriotism" -- say nice things about "the Constitution", get the nice things reported, and maybe nobody will notice you're not the least bit interested in actually respecting the Constitution except to the minimum extent of attacking those with whom you disagree.

Did anyone see the "statement" released on behalf of George W. Bush on "Law Day"? Same thing: "Gee, sure love that Constitution. The 'Rule of Law', pretty great idea, huh? Never mind asking what I've done with that concept during this administration."

Thank you, GG, for pointing out difference between a speech "revering the Constitution" and actions actually respecting it. One is for show, the other would, if implemented, allow our country to prosper and be a beacon of hope for the world. I would prefer the latter -- and I agree with the sentiments of those who want Bush & Co. to answer for their wilful assault on the Constitution. Impeachment first, then tried for war crimes and treason. A patriot can dream....

Who will posit "the list" of specific questions of Constitutional dimension to be asked of the Democratic and the Republican candidates in their first presidential debate?

Keep the bright lights on, GG. Notice how not one of the Usual Suspects has come on here yet to say "move along, nothing to see here?"

Your exposition of what's actually reflected in the planning for the propaganda program [hopefully] eliminates the MSM's plan to ride out a couple of news cycles and leave this problem in the "old news, everybody does it" bin.

Now, again, WHY does/did this happen? I mean, EXACTLY WHY? Who has the power to command this type of propaganda allegiance, in what form is that power wielded, who EXACTLY calls whom and can propose this type of conduct without getting hung up on and the call itself put on the front page? What's perceived to be "in it" for our news media to cower and publish the tripe instead of informing the public of the tripe that is being offered by a corrupt administration?